Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Historical Perspective
  • Published:

Contraception – past and future

Nature Medicine volume 8, pages S3–S6 (2002)Cite this article

Modern contraceptive methods have a surprisingly short history and are dominated by the oral contraceptive pill, which came on to the market in 1960. New developments since the advent of the pill have been largely limited to tinkering with the contents and routes of administration of hormonal contraception. The knowledge that would allow a more exciting approach to new contraceptives does exist but the will to proceed is hampered by financial, political and moral factors, and perhaps ironically by the AIDS epidemic.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Intrauterine devices through the 20th century.
Figure 2

References

  1. Bounds, W., Guillebaud, J. & Newman, G.B. Female condom (Femidom). A clinical study of its use-effectiveness and patient acceptability. Brit. J. Fam. Plan. 18, 36–41 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bernstein, G.S., Israel, R., Seward, P. & Mishell, D.R. Jr. Clinical experience with the Cu 7 intrauterine device. Contraception 6, 99–107 (1972).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Kets, H., Wildermeersch, D. & Van der Pas H. The frameless GynaeFix intrauterine implant; a major improvement in efficacy, expulsion and tolerance. Adv. Contraception 11, 137–142 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lee, N.C. Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet. Gynecol. 62, 1–6 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pincus, G. The control of fertility (Academic Press, New York, 1965).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Beral, V. et al. Mortality associated with oral contraceptive use: 25 year follow up of a cohort of 46,000 women from Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study. Brit. Med. J. 318, 96–100 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards, J.E., Oldman, A., Smith, L., McQuay, H.J. & Moore, R.A. Women's knowledge of and attitudes to contraceptive effectiveness and adverse health events. Br. J. Fam. Plan. 26, 73–80 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gestodene study group 322: The safety and contraceptive efficacy of a 24-day low dose oral contraceptive regimen containing gestodene 60 mg and ethinyloestradiol 15 mg. Eur. J. Contracep. Reprod. Health Care 4, (suppl) 9–15 (1999).

  9. Killick, S.R., Fitzgerald, C. & Davis, A. Ovarian activity in women taking an oral contraceptive containing 20μg ethinyl estradiol and 150μg desogestrel: Effects of low estrogen doses during the hormone-free interval. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 179, S18–S24 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Skegg, D.C.G. Third General Oral Contraceptives. Brit. Med. J., 321, 190–191 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Foidart, J.M., Wuttke, W., Bouw, G.M., Gerlinger, C. & Heithecker R. A comparative investigation of contraceptive reliability, cycle control and tolerance of two monophasic oral contraceptives cotaining either drospirenone or desogestrel. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 5, 124–134 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. World Health Organization Task Force on Long-acting systemic agents for fertility regulation. A multicentred phase III comparative study of two hormonal contraceptive preparations given once-a-month by intramuscular injection: contraceptive efficacy and side effects. Contraception 37, 1–20 (1998).

  13. Croxatto, H.B. Progestin implants for female contraception. Contraception 65, 15–19 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Andersson, K. & Rybo, G. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of menorrhagia. Brit. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97, 690–694 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Roumen, F.J.M.E., Apter, D., Mulders, T.M.T. & Dieben, T.O.M. Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonorgestrel and ethinyloestradiol. Hum. Reprod. 16, 469–475 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Audet, M.C. et al. for the ORTHO/EVRA/EVRA 004 study group. Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive. A randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 285, 2347–2351 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Loudon, N.B., Foxwell, M., Potts, D.M., Guild, A.L. & Short, R.V. Acceptability of an oral contraceptive that reduces frequency of menstruation: the tri-cycle pill regime. Brit. Med. J. ii 487–490 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heller, C.G., Nelson, W.O. & Hill, I.B. Improvements in spermatogenesis following depression of the human testis with testosterone. Fertil. Steril. 1, 415–422 (1950).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brady, B.M. & Anderson, R.A. Advances in Male Contraception. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 11, 333–44 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Potts, M. The myth of a male pill. Nature Med. 2, 398–399 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin, C.W. et al. Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel preparations. Hum. Reprod., 15, 637–645 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Glasier, A.F. et al. Would women trust their partners to use a male pill? Hum. Reprod. 15, 646–649 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Feng, H., Sandlow, J.I., Sparks, A.E.T. & Sandra, A. Development of an immunocontraceptive vaccine. Current status. J. Reprod. Med. 44, 759–765 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown, A., Cheng, L., Lin, S. & Baird, D.T. Daily low-dose mifepristone has contraceptive potential by supressing ovulation and menstruation: A double-blind randomized control trial of 2 and 5 mg per day for 120 days. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 87, 63–70 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gemzell-Danielsson, K., Swahn, M.L., Svalander, P. & Bygdeman, M. Early Luteal phase treatment with mifepristone (RU 486) for fertility regulation. Hum. Reprod. 8, 870–873 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hapangama, D.K., Glasier, A.F., Brown, A. & Baird, D.T. Feasibility of administering mifepristone as a once a month contraceptive pill. Hum. Reprod. 16, 1145–1150 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as emergency contraception: a randomised trial. Lancet 353, 697–702 (1999).

  28. World Population Data Sheet. Population Reference Bureau, Washington DC (2001).

  29. Contraceptive technology and the state of science: new horizons. Contraceptive research and development. (eds Harrison, P.F. & Rosenfield, A., National Academic Press, Washington DC, 1996).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust and University of Edinburgh Department of Reproduction and Development, Edinburgh, EH4 1NL, Scotland

    Anna Glasier

Authors
  1. Anna Glasier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glasier, A. Contraception – past and future. Nat Med 8 (Suppl 10), S3–S6 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm-fertilityS3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm-fertilityS3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing